Open science communication: The first year of the UK's Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the complex relationship between science and policy. Policymakers have had to make decisions at speed in conditions of uncertainty, implementing policies that have had profound consequences for people's lives. Yet this process has sometimes been characterised by fragmentation, opacity and a disconnect between evidence and policy. In the United Kingdom, concerns about the secrecy that initially surrounded this process led to the creation of Independent SAGE, an unofficial group of scientists from different disciplines that came together to ask policy-relevant questions, review the evolving evidence, and make evidence-based recommendations. The group took a public health approach with a population perspective, worked in a holistic transdisciplinary way, and were committed to public engagement. In this paper, we review the lessons learned during its first year. These include the importance of learning from local expertise, the value of learning from other countries, the role of civil society as a critical friend to government, finding appropriate relationships between science and policy, and recognising the necessity of viewing issues through an equity lens.

Impact of Next-generation Sequencing Defined Human Immunodeficiency Virus Pretreatment Drug Resistance on Virological Outcomes in the ANRS 12249 Treatment-as-Prevention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive individuals on thymidine analogue backbone antiretroviral therapy (ART) with either nevirapine or efavirenz have suggested poorer virological outcomes in the presence of pretreatment drug resistance (PDR). We assessed the impact of PDR on virological suppression (VS; <50 copies/mL) in individuals prescribed primarily tenofovir/emtricitabine/efavirenz in rural KwaZulu-Natal within a treatment-as-prevention trial. METHODS: Among 1557 HIV-positive individuals who reported no prior ART at study entry and provided plasma samples, 1328 individuals with entry viral load (VL) >1000 copies/mL had next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the HIV pol gene with MiSeq technology. Results were obtained for 1148 individuals, and the presence of PDR was assessed at 5% and 20% detection thresholds. Virological outcome was assessed using Cox regression in 837 of 920 ART initiators with at least 1 follow-up VL after ART initiation. RESULTS: PDR prevalence was 9.5% (109/1148) and 12.8% (147/1148) at 20% and 5% thresholds, respectively. After a median of 1.36 years (interquartile range, 0.91-2.13), mostly on fixed-dose combination tenofovir/emtricitabine/efavirenz, presence of both nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor PDR vs no PDR was associated with longer time to VS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.86), while there was no difference between those with only NNRTI PDR vs no PDR (aHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82-1.34) at the 5% threshold. Similar differences were observed for mutations detected at the 20% threshold, although without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: NGS uncovered a high prevalence of PDR among participants enrolled in trial clinics in rural KwaZulu-Natal. Dual-class PDR to a mainly tenofovir/emtricitabine/efavirenz regimen was associated with poorer VS. However, there was no impact of NNRTI PDR alone. CLINICAL TRIALS TEGISTRATION: NCT01509508; South African National Clinical Trials Register: DOH-27-0512-3974.

Imputing HIV treatment start dates from routine laboratory data in South Africa: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Poor clinical record keeping hinders health systems monitoring and patient care in many low resource settings. We develop and validate a novel method to impute dates of antiretroviral treatment (ART) initiation from routine laboratory data in South Africa's public sector HIV program. This method will enable monitoring of the national ART program using real-time laboratory data, avoiding the error potential of chart review. METHODS: We developed an algorithm to impute ART start dates based on the date of a patient's "ART workup", i.e. the laboratory tests used to determine treatment readiness in national guidelines, and the time from ART workup to initiation based on clinical protocols (21 days). To validate the algorithm, we analyzed data from two large clinical HIV cohorts: Hlabisa HIV Treatment and Care Programme in rural KwaZulu-Natal; and Right to Care Cohort in urban Gauteng. Both cohorts contain known ART initiation dates and laboratory results imported directly from the National Health Laboratory Service. We assessed median time from ART workup to ART initiation and calculated sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of our imputed start date vs. the true start date within a 6 month window. Heterogeneity was assessed across individual clinics and over time. RESULTS: We analyzed data from over 80,000 HIV-positive adults. Among patients who had a workup and initiated ART, median time to initiation was 16 days (IQR 7,31) in Hlabisa and 21 (IQR 8,43) in RTC cohort. Among patients with known ART start dates, SE of the imputed start date was 83% in Hlabisa and 88% in RTC, indicating this method accurately predicts ART start dates for about 85% of all ART initiators. In Hlabisa, PPV was 95%, indicating that for patients with a lab workup, true start dates were predicted with high accuracy. SP (100%) and NPV (92%) were also very high. CONCLUSIONS: Routine laboratory data can be used to infer ART initiation dates in South Africa's public sector. Where care is provided based on protocols, laboratory data can be used to monitor health systems performance and improve accuracy and completeness of clinical records.

Cost-effectiveness of HIV drug resistance testing to inform switching to second line antiretroviral therapy in low income settings.

BACKGROUND: To guide future need for cheap resistance tests for use in low income settings, we assessed cost-effectiveness of drug resistance testing as part of monitoring of people on first line ART - with switching from first to second line ART being conditional on NNRTI drug resistance mutations being identified. METHODS: An individual level simulation model of HIV transmission, progression and the effect of ART which accounts for adherence and resistance development was used to compare outcomes of various potential monitoring strategies in a typical low income setting in sub-Saharan Africa. Underlying monitoring strategies considered were based on clinical disease, CD4 count or viral load. Within each we considered a strategy in which no further measures are performed, one with a viral load measure to confirm failure, and one with both a viral load measure and a resistance test. Predicted outcomes were assessed over 2015-2025 in terms of viral suppression, first line failure, switching to second line regimen, death, HIV incidence, disability-adjusted-life-years averted and costs. Potential future low costs of resistance tests ($30) were used. RESULTS: The most effective strategy, in terms of DALYs averted, was one using viral load monitoring without confirmation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was $2113 (the same as that for viral load monitoring with confirmation). ART monitoring strategies which involved resistance testing did not emerge as being more effective or cost effective than strategies not using it. The slightly reduced ART costs resulting from use of resistance testing, due to less use of second line regimens, was of similar magnitude to the costs of resistance tests. CONCLUSION: Use of resistance testing at the time of first line failure as part of the decision whether to switch to second line therapy was not cost-effective, even though the test was assumed to be very inexpensive.

World Health Organization/HIVResNet Drug Resistance Laboratory Strategy.

With rapidly increasing access to antiretroviral drugs globally, HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) has become a significant public health issue. This requires a coordinated and collaborative response from country level to international level to assess the extent of HIVDR and the establishment of efficient and evidence-based strategies to minimize its appearance and onward transmission. In parallel with the rollout of universal access to HIV treatment, countries are developing protocols based on the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) to measure, at a population level, both transmitted HIVDR and HIVDR emerging during treatment. The WHO in collaboration with international experts (HIVResNet Laboratory Working Group), has developed a laboratory strategy, which has the overall goal of delivering quality-assured HIV genotypic results on specimens derived from the HIVDR surveys. The results will be used to help control the emergence and spread of drug resistance and to guide decision makers on antiretroviral therapy policy at national, regional and global level. The HIVDR Laboratory Strategy developed by the WHO includes several key aspects: the formation of a global network of national, regional and specialized laboratories accredited to perform HIVDR testing using a common set of WHO standard and performance indicators; recommendations of acceptable methods for collection, handling, shipment and storage of specimens in field conditions; and the provision of laboratory technical support, capacity building and quality assurance for network laboratories. The WHO/HIVResNet HIVDR Laboratory Network has been developed along the lines of other successful laboratory networks coordinated by the WHO. As of August 2007, assessment for accreditation has been conducted in 30 laboratories, covering the WHO's African, South-East Asia, Western Pacific, and the Caribbean Regions.